*
 * <p>On different platforms AbstractFuture uses different strategies for its core synchronization
 * primitives. The strategies are all implemented as subtypes of AtomicHelper and the strategy is
 * selected in the static initializer of AbstractFuture. This is convenient and performant but
 * introduces some testing difficulties. This test exercises the two fallback strategies in abstract
 * future.
 *
 * <ul>

        list.subList(k, list.size()).clear();
      }
      list.trimToSize();
      return Collections.unmodifiableList(list);
    } else {
      TopKSelector<E> selector = TopKSelector.least(k, this);
      selector.offerAll(iterator);
      return selector.topK();
    }
  }

  /**
   * Returns the {@code k} greatest elements of the given iterable according to this ordering, in

      int[] allRequired, int requiredFrom, int requiredTo, double[] array, int from, int to) {
    // Choose the first selection to do...
    int requiredChosen = chooseNextSelection(allRequired, requiredFrom, requiredTo, from, to);
    int required = allRequired[requiredChosen];

    // ...do the first selection...
    selectInPlace(required, array, from, to);

    // ...then recursively perform the selections in the range below...

      if (array[min] > array[i]) {
        min = i;
      }
    }
    return array[min];
  }

  static double select(int k, double[] array) {
    // This is basically a copy of com.google.math.Rank#select, with a small change in the method
    // signature: we make k 0-based rather than 1-based; and we drop from and to, and always work on
    // the whole array.
    int from = 0;

      if (array[min] > array[i]) {
        min = i;
      }
    }
    return array[min];
  }

  static double select(int k, double[] array) {
    // This is basically a copy of com.google.math.Rank#select, with a small change in the method
    // signature: we make k 0-based rather than 1-based; and we drop from and to, and always work on
    // the whole array.
    int from = 0;

 *
 * <p>On different platforms AggregateFutureState uses different strategies for its core
 * synchronization primitives. The strategies are all implemented as subtypes of AtomicHelper and
 * the strategy is selected in the static initializer of AggregateFutureState. This is convenient
 * and performant but introduces some testing difficulties. This test exercises the two fallback
 * strategies.
 *
 * <ul>

          root = Optional.of(new BinaryNode(rng.nextInt(), Optional.<BinaryNode>absent(), root));
        }
        return root;
      }
    },
    RANDOM {
      /**
       * Generates a tree with topology selected uniformly at random from the topologies of binary
       * trees of the specified size.
       */
      @Override
      Optional<BinaryNode> createTree(int size, Random rng) {
        int[] keys = new int[size];

    27.0, depends on
    listenablefuture-9999.0-empty-to-avoid-conflict-with-guava. The 9999.0-...
    version number is enough for some build systems (notably, Gradle) to select
    that empty artifact over the "real" listenablefuture-1.0 -- avoiding a
    conflict with the copy of ListenableFuture in guava itself. If users are
    using an older version of Guava or a build system other than Gradle, they

  /**
   * The maximum value of an ASCII character.
   *
   * @since 9.0 (was type {@code int} before 12.0)
   */
  public static final char MAX = 127;

  /** A bit mask which selects the bit encoding ASCII character case. */
  private static final char CASE_MASK = 0x20;

  /**
   * Returns a copy of the input string in which all {@linkplain #isUpperCase(char) uppercase ASCII

      description: What actually happened?
    validations:
      required: true

  - type: dropdown
    attributes:
      label: Packages
      description: If this issue is package-specific, then please select the relevant packages.
      multiple: true
      options:
        - com.google.common.annotations
        - com.google.common.base
        - com.google.common.cache
        - com.google.common.collect